AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 4
133
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


I don't believe i spoke about knowing anything regarding proof, rather i was stating that to submit such wild ideas WITHOUT proof seems subjective. It wasn't me rallying on about harboring any proof at all...i simply stated that by looking at what had happened and studying the physics of what happened, i'm led to believe that that's ALL that happened...everything else to me just screams personal opinion...i even typed up an anecdotal story here as i was there and saw the plane fly over my head and shortly after, within a few short minutes, was on the site and witnessed the devastation..you really have ZERO clue as to what it was like unless you were standing a short few hundred feet below the hole.




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


I was on COURT st when the first one flew over my head...it was so loud, that screaming turbine engine wail. Fast as well. Heard it coming and watched it pass over for a good few seconds i would say...nothing on the fuselage at all....just plane (to address bomb theorists on the fuselage)....well the BOOm was awfully loud at that popint i was already on my way up the street to see what the hell had happened...as i was en route i saw the fireball flash and heard instant mayhem....upon arriving on the scene looong before firemen and police it was just utter devastation.....i was loitering beneath the tower that was hit when the second plane flew in from a diff direction. another gigantic BOOM! people screaming sirens wailing..chaos...man i'd hate to see any type of serious catastrophe occur stateside it would be absolute chaos....at this point all civil services were on scene and/or arriving FAST..people were wandering around filming the event asking me what happened etc etc...then minutes later as the towers were smoldering the people began hanging out the windows of the tower above the hole, waving their arms and stuff....jumping...was horrible.....to answer your question i was no where near bldg 7, so i dont know.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jpmail
 



You critize the experiment without pointing out the flawes you feel are in it and you proved no counter arugment. Try again in a constructive manner and your input might actually help solve the debate


Really? Good lord where do you even start? How about a written abstract that describes the experiment, the controls, the objectives, some backgound on the persons who designed and are conducting the experiment. 10 minute youtibe videos are not "experiments"! They may be a reference, but you need to describe in exacting detail what it is your expecting to observe and why you are expecting it.

In so far as the bonfire demonstration is concerned - don't even know what that is attempting to achieve. Is the bonfire supposed to be replicating the conditions at the collapse site? How so? What are you presuming with regard to those conditions and how does the bonfire compare precisely?

The whole thing is scientifically backwards anyway. We have an observation - the next step would be to reproduce what was observed, not try to replicate something that was not observed (which is the process that contrubuted to the condition of the two steel samples).

Lets also not forget, as FEMA points out, these conditions were NOT universally found throughtout the steel remains of the WTC buildings, but were found in only two samples and even those samples were from undetermined location THOUGHT to be WTC 1,2, or 7. But who really knows for sure?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeddun
reply to post by bigyin
 


I was on COURT st when the first one flew over my head...it was so loud, that screaming turbine engine wail. Fast as well. Heard it coming and watched it pass over for a good few seconds i would say...nothing on the fuselage at all....just plane (to address bomb theorists on the fuselage)....well the BOOm was awfully loud at that popint i was already on my way up the street to see what the hell had happened...as i was en route i saw the fireball flash and heard instant mayhem....upon arriving on the scene looong before firemen and police it was just utter devastation.....i was loitering beneath the tower that was hit when the second plane flew in from a diff direction. another gigantic BOOM! people screaming sirens wailing..chaos...man i'd hate to see any type of serious catastrophe occur stateside it would be absolute chaos....at this point all civil services were on scene and/or arriving FAST..people were wandering around filming the event asking me what happened etc etc...then minutes later as the towers were smoldering the people began hanging out the windows of the tower above the hole, waving their arms and stuff....jumping...was horrible.....to answer your question i was no where near bldg 7, so i dont know.



You don't know


I'll tell you ..... none

so explain how your rants, sorry experience, fits in with wtc 7 falling down.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
This is extremely fascinating. I have a question.

Based on the professional recommendations to NIST, the NYT article, and other sources, it seems clear to me that this was a substantial question and that it was not adequately addressed by NIST.

My question is: that being the case, did the experiment in this video sufficiently replicate the conditions under which the beams are alleged to have melted in WTC 7? Was the fuel the same? (The video says diesel; is that what commercial aircraft use? Would the amount of fuel on 9-11 being different make a difference?) Was there the same degree of insulation? (the video shows wood insulation - along with the test materials - around a single beam; is this equivalent to what happened on 9-11?) Was the temperature of the fire the same? (The video says the fire was hot enough to turn the steel red, but was that as hot as the fire burned on 9-11?)

If the answer to that is yes, then this is quite compelling (and disturbing) to say the least. If the answer is no though, then it's at least still possible that further investigation is required before reaching a conclusion, right? If that's true I hope that a more directly equivalent experiment will be carried out (as I feel it should have been by NIST in the first place.) If the answer to those questions is "yes" though, then this is strong evidence to be sure.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by AceWombat04]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 



Dude there was no plane hit wtc 7, therefore there was no aviation fuel.

There were diesel fuel tanks in the building we are told.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Ah, my bad. Confusion occured.

And to my other questions...?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Remember when the high school physics teacher proved free fall acceleration? Consequently NIST was forced to admit WTC 7 did in fact fall at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds. That means ZERO resistance to gravity. All of those columns and no resistance...hmmm????

So now we have another backyard scientist pointing out the obvious with an experiment NIST promised and should have performed. Just like free fall acceleration, the truth must be pointed out by an ordinary citizen with zero funding. Good find!



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Hmn...i fail to see why, one, you refer to my post as a rant and not others whom agree with your POV...and two, why would the government be SO concerned with building 7 as to construct some farsical controversial conspiracy?!?? what the HELL is so damn special about bldg 7?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
[double posted]

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DefinitelyNotaSheeple]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Now, I may be a little new here, but I have made a stunning observation. Certain individuals keep posting completely ridiculous theories about "mini-nukes" and "space directed energy weapons" then other individuals post comments about how all truthers are nuts for believing those theories.

I smell disinfo agents working in tandem.

I am annoyed when I try to read the comments section, and now instead of reading flat out disinfo-agents and the actual people of this site having great arguments, I have disinfo agents and other disinfo agents having conversations with themselves!
can someone ban the individuals who are posting unrelated theories in threads about completely different topics.

micronukes, and space weapons? As a long time lurker on ATS, I can honestly say the only person who would suggest that is someone with an agenda to make anyone reading the thread think that the people on ats are nuts.

By "trolling" and posting this drivel, the mass number of people who read the thread get this strange feeling that the denizens of ats are nuts, when it is a small group of suspicious people posting off topic theories that have nothing to do with the thread.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by DefinitelyNotaSheeple]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyline74
 

On yesterday evening a 9/11 documentary was broadcast on French TV (100% official version). We are not yet in September, therefore, I believe "they" think it is important to hype the official version as more and more people now doubt it.
Of course, no mention was made of building 7. I think this is fishy not to speak about it when you know it is as high as France's highest skyscraper!

911 is an inside job, there is no doubt for me about it. Too many things don't add up. I remember reading in the Nist final report that they had based their researches only on photographs and videos because the building remains had been trashed! Then, can't Truthers make their own research, with the same respectfulness?

The first thing that convinced me 9/11 was an inside job is the poles the plane is said to have knocked down at the Pentagon. Theses shouldn't have fallen the way they did, but they should have been cut and have made the plane crash immediately. See link below to get my point(I don't know how to embed a video which is not from Youtube or Google):
External video



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
S & F, OP.

This thread is really telling.

@Dereks and Jeddun, the Pro's -

Planes hit WTC towers 1 and 2.

None hit WTC 7.

In towers 1 and 2, every single beam/column was completely intact from the underground foundations, to the point of impact. There were also a fraction of the columns that were still intact to the tip top. (It is debatable how many columns an aluminum plane could sever after going through the steel 'mesh' of the outer structure of the WTC 1 and 2 - the aluminum would not be in very good shape to start hacking away at the thick steel central columns...)

In WTC 7, since no plane hit it, every single central beam/column was intact from the underground foundations, to the tip top.

A couple of small fires on one or two floors in WTC 7?

How were the beams compromised at the bases of all 3 towers?

----

Not naming any names now...

Focusing on the outrageous theories is a fallicious way of discussing an issue like 9/11, and is highly ignorant and rude and in poor taste. If one deliberately uses this technique for purposes of cognitive infiltration or perpetrating a hegelian dialectic... then that person is not only rude and ignorant - but traitors if you live in the U.S.

Please watch these two videos(only 20 minutes!!
) as they summarize what real 'truthers' actually have questions about.









posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
great post
S&F

kinda gives more credence to those
firefighters who radioed in that they found
multiple devices in the buildings before
the collapse. I wonder what one of those
devices looked like if it would have
gotten it out before they fell?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Hehe that video was pretty funny.

but hey if that is considered science, then this video should prove a lot more:



Wow! Look at that! A steel beam failed from fire alone! Quickly too!



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DefinitelyNotaSheeple
 


Can someone PLEASE tell me what the hell a disinfo agent is?! is this a real job title/career?! I have never heard of this till coming to this site....aren't we ALL just normal people arguing our own points of view??/ why are some classified as disinfo agents and not others? that in itself seems highly undemocratic to this American...makes no sense.

Have we ever actually found a resume with this title? or a single person that conceivably sits all day and types nonsense? and furthermore what would THAT chain of command look like?? a disinfo hierarchy? This alone to me is the strangest thing i have read on this site yet.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


"..., every single central beam/column was intact from the underground foundations, to the tip top. "

Do we have any way of knowing this to be a fact ? It was/is my understanding that debris from one of the towers crashed into building 7 .



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Hi boondock ,

I would be interested in looking at this if you can provide me with a source . Thanks .



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Imagine that !

And in less than four minutes !


I simply loved the part where the truthers were saying it was irrelevant .

Great post Gen .



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I don't usually post in this forum, but I have to say, that disclose tv video is absolutely ridiculous. He has no idea how video and 3D editing work.

IF there was a "ball", and they lined up their 3D plane with it, why would they NOT remove the ball? His expplanation is idiotic at best.

Special effects houses do this kind of work EVERY day. Don't you think they would remove the ball?

Regardless of what people believe, crap like that has to be dismissed right off the bat.

The internet has given way to the "everyone's an expert" syndrome, which is really getting tiresome.

And please stop saying Photoshop for everything? PS is used on still images. This is video. Since no one knows any video software that would do this I'll give you some examples: AfterEffects and, you guys will love this, NUKE!

Carry on...





new topics
top topics
 
133
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join